They are no longer about story-telling. There's a lot of speculation out there about what exactly it is that is being prioritized over the writing, but what matters is really only that the writing isn't the priority. Whether it's showing off a special effect, creating an (supposedly) interesting confluence of elements of the Star Wars universe, or extreme political statements, if there is no story going on then the audience has no motivation to engage with the product.
we might think of them as having free speech rights
Or we could just use some common sense.
I have free speech rights. I can hold up a sign with message I want to convey. The sign does not have free speech rights, and it's legitimacy ends the moment it leaves my hand.
You mean all this time people could sue over senior management committing "breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets"?
For most of them that's the only reason they wanted those jobs in the first place.
We've already had paintings and photos of our loved ones for a couple centuries.
I think that's what's really messing with my head about this. I see rationally why it could be an technological extension of stuff we've always done, but my intuition is screaming that this is the opposite of mourning, it's avoiding dealing with the reality of death and can't possibly be healthy psychologically. (Maybe in a few cases it could help as a transitional measure but not generally.)
1. It's a worthy scientific endeavour. 2. We don't know how to make it work yet.
Both things are true, but some day (2) will cease to be true.
So let's 1. start the preliminary planning and research and enjoy the economic and technological spin-offs, but 2. not actually make the trip when we're so completely not ready.
Why isn't it like doing scales before playing music
I think this is a very insightful analogy. It's a starting point, a kind of toy essay that helps with the basics. I also like the analogy give once or twice above with the "Hello, World!" program.
And in the same way, if you can't play something besides scales or program something besides "Hello, world!", then the learning process is seriously off track.
I believe something needs to be done to keep society functioning if, as many expect, automation will lead to a fall in the demand for labour.
But I am skeptical of universal basic income, and there are aspects that for some strange reason never seem to be discussed:
1. Whose definition of basic? Is it subsistence, or some minimum of material comfort? 2. There are people with light mental illness who will still need social workers intervening in their management of adult responsibilities. 3. What happens if there's a change in technology or other societal change (could be global warming, or something else) that leads to a massive labour shortage? 4. Will there be inflation? Will changes in housing costs force people to relocate against their will? 5. Will people really be able to lead meaningful lives without employment? (Maybe you will, but will everyone?)
It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) have to be a choice between desperate struggle and making no material contribution at all. Finding meaning is not trivial. The basic income experiment happens every time someone wins the lottery and is given the opportunity to never work again except by choice. It turns out they rarely end up with a meaningful life.
It's embarrassing to Trump that the Russians very clearly considered him to be worse for the US national interest than Clinton (which is really saying a lot), but that's a long way from a crime.
Though actual crimes wouldn't surprise me in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
They are no longer about story-telling. There's a lot of speculation out there about what exactly it is that is being prioritized over the writing, but what matters is really only that the writing isn't the priority. Whether it's showing off a special effect, creating an (supposedly) interesting confluence of elements of the Star Wars universe, or extreme political statements, if there is no story going on then the audience has no motivation to engage with the product.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and looked it up, and "obvious partisan lines" is still ludicrous.
Their views on the new studies, however, didn't fall along obvious partisan lines.
How on Earth can this have a partisan divide?
I don't even know my member of parliament's stand on the issue.
The sign's legitimacy derives wholly from my right to free speech.
The sign itself has no rights.
If I've paid for the book I can burn if I want. That's my right to free speech. The author's rights don't enter into it at all.
Can a bot exercise someone's right to vote? How about a million bots?
enhanced safety in the short-term, and revenue opportunities in the future
Only one of those is something manufacturers genuinely care about. The other one had to be imposed on them by governments.
we might think of them as having free speech rights
Or we could just use some common sense.
I have free speech rights. I can hold up a sign with message I want to convey. The sign does not have free speech rights, and it's legitimacy ends the moment it leaves my hand.
Have we become so vain and narcissistic
Rhetorical question, right?
You mean all this time people could sue over senior management committing "breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets"?
For most of them that's the only reason they wanted those jobs in the first place.
Bell Canada ranks up there with anyone else in the world for most evil corporation.
Sure, not intrinsically bad, but there's still the opportunity cost of not doing something (more) worthwhile with their time.
We've already had paintings and photos of our loved ones for a couple centuries.
I think that's what's really messing with my head about this. I see rationally why it could be an technological extension of stuff we've always done, but my intuition is screaming that this is the opposite of mourning, it's avoiding dealing with the reality of death and can't possibly be healthy psychologically. (Maybe in a few cases it could help as a transitional measure but not generally.)
It's not complicated.
1. It's a worthy scientific endeavour.
2. We don't know how to make it work yet.
Both things are true, but some day (2) will cease to be true.
So let's
1. start the preliminary planning and research and enjoy the economic and technological spin-offs, but
2. not actually make the trip when we're so completely not ready.
Why isn't it like doing scales before playing music
I think this is a very insightful analogy. It's a starting point, a kind of toy essay that helps with the basics. I also like the analogy give once or twice above with the "Hello, World!" program.
And in the same way, if you can't play something besides scales or program something besides "Hello, world!", then the learning process is seriously off track.
I believe something needs to be done to keep society functioning if, as many expect, automation will lead to a fall in the demand for labour.
But I am skeptical of universal basic income, and there are aspects that for some strange reason never seem to be discussed:
1. Whose definition of basic? Is it subsistence, or some minimum of material comfort?
2. There are people with light mental illness who will still need social workers intervening in their management of adult responsibilities.
3. What happens if there's a change in technology or other societal change (could be global warming, or something else) that leads to a massive labour shortage?
4. Will there be inflation? Will changes in housing costs force people to relocate against their will?
5. Will people really be able to lead meaningful lives without employment? (Maybe you will, but will everyone?)
Also known as automation. It's been happening for a while.
It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) have to be a choice between desperate struggle and making no material contribution at all. Finding meaning is not trivial. The basic income experiment happens every time someone wins the lottery and is given the opportunity to never work again except by choice. It turns out they rarely end up with a meaningful life.
The travelling salesman problem is not difficult if you're willing to settle for "approximate solutions".
I know I should assess the assertion based on its merits, but "Google denies" really lends it an undeserved credibility.
That sounds a lot more like deficit spending. I would agree that that's likely to be better than defecate spending. Probably a lot better.
Isn't it ironic that the supposedly anti-tax party is also the one that supports an expensive military?
No, it's not ironic, because they prioritize (government) military power over (citizen) economic power.
They might not be honest about their priorities, but it's hardly as though they hiding them.
It's embarrassing to Trump that the Russians very clearly considered him to be worse for the US national interest than Clinton (which is really saying a lot), but that's a long way from a crime.
Though actual crimes wouldn't surprise me in any way.
Tumblr want to be more inclusive
Thus the exclusion.
I don't actually care what Tumblr includes or excludes, but I find Orwellian language particularly annoying. Especially when it's not even clever.
Scientific evidence is better than anecdotes. And doing something about it (assuming you consider it a problem) requires starting with facts.